The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act is deemed to be a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 48 of the Andhra Court Fees Act applies to appeals claiming enhanced compensation, necessitating ad valorem Court-fee on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.

( 1 ) THIS reference was made to a Bench by one of us (Venkatesam, J.) on account of the novel contention put forward regarding the question of Court-fee, and the important principle it involves.

( 2 ) THE facts shortly are these. Toe Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Warangal, made a reference to the District Judge, Warangal, under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (which corresponds to Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 1 of 1894 as the claimants were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. It was registered as Original Petition No. 36 of 1960. It may be noted that though the reference was made under the Hyderabad Land" Acquisition Act, during the pendency of the petition that Act was repealed, and Act 1 of 1894 was made applicable to the erstwhile Telangana area. The district Judge confirmed the award of the Land-Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by that decision, the claimants preferred the appeal to this Court for enhanced compensation.

( 3 ) IN the appeal memorandum, the paragraph-dealing with the valuation of the appeal, reads-thus:"the total amount due at the rate of twelve annas per yard to which the appellants beg to confine their claim in this appeal though they are entitled to higher rate is. . . . . . . Rs. 2,68,257-00 Amount allowed as compensation is "88,630-00 The difference claimed as compensation is. . . . . . . . " 1. 79,577. 00" Appellants pray that the said excess may be awarded to them with interest thereon at 6% as statutorily provided in. 5. 23 of the Act and costs, and 15% solatium thereon as usual. Note: It is submitted that no court fee is payable as under Section 49 of the Andhra Court Fees Act/court fee payable in appeal is the Same as in the court of the first instance and no court fee is payable in the Court of the first instance. " Though it was noted that Court-fee was not payable, a Court-fee label of Rs. 2. 00 was, however, affixed to the Memorandum of appeal.

( 4 ) THE office of this court required the appellants to pay ad valorem Court-fee under Section 48 of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The appellants contended that Court-fee is payable not under Section 48, but under Section 49 of the said. Act, which provides for payment of Court-feepaid in the lower Court, and that consequently Court-fee of Rs. 2. 00 has been paid.

( 5 ) THE contention of Sri Shankar Sastry, the learned Counsel for the appellants, may be stated thus: The Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. VII of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") governs the case. According to Section 48 of the Act, Court-fee is, no doubt, payable on the dif-erence between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellants, but it applies only to appeals against an order relating to compensation under any Act. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act provides an appeal to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award of the Court, which is now deemed to be a decree by reason of "section 26 (2), added by Amendment Act XIX of 1921, In other words, the contention is that the order in Section 48 refers not to an award of the Land Acquisition Court which is now deemed to be a decree under Section 26 (2), but any order relating to compensation. Therefore, Section 49 of the Act governs the case, and according to it the fee payable on the appeal memo shall be the same as that payable in the court of first instance which in the present case is nil. According to the learned counsel, the Act requires payment of Court-fee only in cases of appeals against decree as such, but not in the case of appeals against adjudications deemed to be decrees, like the awards passed by a Land Acquisition Court. He concedes that a Land Acquisition Court is a Civil Court, but even so its adjudication as to compensation is only an award amounting to a decree, but not an order. It is further contendedthat Section 3 (4) of the Act for the first time enacted that the